Small and mighty: a review of Apple’s new 13″ MacBook Pro

With the latest round of MacBook Pro upgrades, Apple finally brings all of its …

Ever since Apple's move from PowerPC chips to Intel's offerings, MacBook Pro upgrades have happened with better frequency and pretty good foreshadowing. And last month, Apple upgraded its main portable line right on schedule. Gone are the Core 2 Duos and Nehalem processors, their place taken by Intel's Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7 processors across the entire line. In the 15" and 17" MacBook Pros, these chips have four cores, the 13" has either a dual-core i5 or a dual-core i7. had no plans to upgrade, but then fate did its thing and I ended up walking out of a well known big box retailer with a shiny new 13" i7 MacBook Pro, which in standard configuration sells for $1499.

I must confess that since the arrival of the iPad, I'd been telling everyone that I couldn't see myself bothering with a new MacBook for another couple of years, now that most of my time was spent with the tablet. That would have been true had it not been for hardware trouble with my Santa Rosa MacBook, and after telling myself that a little over three years is an acceptable upgrade time, I now get what the unibody fuss is all about. But I'm getting ahead of myself. First, the unboxing.

Not sure how they can trim much more packaging out.

Unboxing Apple products used to be the stuff of legend, or something like that. Then Steve Jobs found religion, and recycling concerns (and possibly shipping weight) led to a significant alteration in the way Apple packaged its products. Despite this, upon opening the box you're still presented with an elegant package, designed to let you know you made the right choice and you're someone special. At least, that's my interpretation. The last time I did this, I thought the experience was minimalist. This time, it's even more so, since you don't get the Apple Remote that was included in 2007. You do get a powerbrick, still with a magsafe connector, but a smaller and more elegant one than before.

Small but perfectly formed

Apple has been doing the unibody case thing for a while, and we've discussed it a length in previous reviews, but this is my own first experience with the unibody case design. I definitely like what I see. A real problem with my older polycarbonate MacBook is its habit of losing plastic from the edge where the top meets the side; there was also some case flexing that could make it very difficult to get an optical disc into the drive.

On the left side are all the ports: magsafe, gigabit Ethernet, FW800, 2 USB ports, Thunderbolt (which outputs video but can also do other things), an XDSD card slot, and an audio in/out. The biggest step up for me is the inclusion of a card reader, which has proved more than useful over the last two weeks.

Aluminium body should prevent the mouth of the drive flexing and warping

Apple is making a big deal out of Thunderbolt. Intel has been working on Thunderbolt for a while now, and the interconnect will eventually leverage the bandwidth potential of fiber optics rather than copper to allow data speeds of 100 Gb/s. For now, since Apple has implemented it using the same port design as mini DisplayPort, we'll have to settle for copper cables and a mere 10 Gb/s, if you can call that settling. All your existing monitors or adapters will continue to work, but you gain the functionality of being able to add peripherals into the mix. With a direct connection to the PCI Express architecture, it should bring MacPro-levels of expansion and ability to the portable line. According to the Apple tech I spoke to, Thunderbolt's versatility means that Thunderbolt-USB, Thunderbolt-FW, or even Thunderbolt-Fiber Channel is possible. For a better explanation of this new interconnect, check out our previous writeup.

While there's some skepticism over the utility of Thunderbolt among some of the keyboard-bashing monkeys here at the Orbiting HQ, I can see where it might become quite useful for scientific applications like genomics or neuroimaging, which generate hundreds of gigabytes of data quite easily. Being able to pull huge volumes of data (and in some of these biomedical applications, the volumes really are huge) rapidly onto a laptop for data crunching on the go will be a real plus. It's also obvious to see the utility of Thunderbolt for more traditional high-throughput applications like rendering. Although there aren't many Thunderbolt peripherals on the market right yet, since the technology is Intel's and not Apple's, that will certainly change as more OEMs start shipping Thunderbolt-equipped machines.

Kinda expected more in-depth as opposed to benchmark after benchmark. How the new graphics implementation feels would have been a great area to discuss in further detail. I distrust any form of integrated Intel Graphics (I have the 2008 Black Macbook with the X3100), and would have been interested how it handled games.

The Kensington lock location I find a little confusing; it looks like if you use it, it blocks the DVD-RW drive slightly. Is that the case?

from 2009, Apple changed things so that you needed a #00 Phillips screwdriver to remove the entire bottom casing, at which point you had access to all the innards

I upgraded the RAM in my late-2008 15" MBP last week and it involved the same procedure, so I suspect that this 'feature' goes one revision further back than stated. The only easily-accessible part was the hard drive.

Still, for anyone looking for a better GPU than last year, I'd wait for Ivy Bridge. We should get something much better then.

From what I've read, Ivy Bridge will have 18 EUs vs 12 on the Sandy Bridge chips. 50% more GPU performance will be welcome but it's barely enough to keep pace - next spring ATI and Nvidia will have new GPUs on 28nm and will likely be able to nearly double current performance in the same price/power ranges, and from a relative standpoint Intel will fall behind.

I have one of the new 15" MBPs (thanks work!) and the CPU horsepower is shocking. I can't honestly recall any previous time when I've had a laptop that actually ran faster than the best production servers I had access to, and I'm really looking forward to playing with Thunderbolt once some peripherals finally come out for it.

However... I'm shocked by how much of a step backward the graphics are (both the integrated Intel crap and the ATI Radeon HD 6490M). Dragging windows around the top of the screen, I can actually see tearing, and it still happens even if I disable the integrated GPU. Not only that, but simple animations like the zoom effect when toggling between actual-size and full-screen videos in QuickTime Player X and iTunes are choppy as hell.

What bothers me with this new model is the same old resolution. I'm also convinced that it is done on purpose to get people to spend more on the 15 inch model. However, 15 inch is just too big for portability in my opinion. 13 inch is just about right, 14 inch would be the sweet spot for me.

I don't really understand why they can't offer a high-res option on the online store though. As of right now, there hasn't been an Apple laptop that really suits me. The 13 inch MBP has a bad resolution and the 15 inch one is too big. The 13 inch MacBook Air has the better display but lacks in processing power. And there isn't really a PC manufacturer that comes even close to the unibody design of the MBPs, let alone the excellent touchpads.

The durability of the MacBook Pro's glass screen, the pure aluminum unibody enclosure, and the glass trackpad is really something to behold. The materials alone are worth the price over the white plastic MacBook, and you'd certainly make that money back on resale value after a couple of years of use.

All that's left for Jony Ive is to find a suitable replacement for the plastic MacBook keyboard. I love the keyboard, but it's the only part of the MacBook Pro that still shows any significant wear after longterm use. Glass keys? Titanium keys? We'll just have to wait and see...

So wait, a 500MHz clock delta, and barely any performance delta in the single threaded tests? That seems...strange.

For CPU bound tests, such as the integer and fp tests, you would expect on the order of 15-20% performance deltas from a ~23% clock delta (the 13" is ~23% faster, after all).

These tests actually make me think something is wonky in the benchmarks. It would appear that everything is actually memory access bound, rather than CPU bound. Which doesn't make it a particularly good test of CPU performance.

Is there anyone who might be able to explain this?

astrosmash wrote:

All that's left for Jony Ive is to find a suitable replacement for the plastic MacBook keyboard. I love the keyboard, but it's the only part of the MacBook Pro that still shows any significant wear after longterm use. Glass keys? Titanium keys? We'll just have to wait and see...

Or they could just use higher quality keys. Both dye sublimation or double shot injection molding produce keys that last for years, if not decades. I have a HEAVILY used keyboard that is 23 years old (production date of 21 Feb 1988). Grimey, nasty, and built up with crud, inside and out. But after I cleaned it up, those IBM dye sublimated keys looked practically new. They even still had some texture to them. Some were shiny, but still quite clearly labeled. Unlike the Apple keys, which look like garbage about 6 months after purchase.

Edit: For reference, Apple (and most other OEMs) uses pad printed labels. It's really the only way to have white labels on black keys. Hence the short life time many people experience with the labels.

Unboxing Apple products used to be the stuff of legend, or something like that. Then Steve Jobs found religion, and recycling concerns (and possibly shipping weight) led to a significant alteration in the way Apple packaged its products.

So wait, a 500MHz clock delta, and barely any performance delta in the single threaded tests? That seems...strange.

For CPU bound tests, such as the integer and fp tests, you would expect on the order of 15-20% performance deltas from a ~23% clock delta (the 13" is ~23% faster, after all).

These tests actually make me think something is wonky in the benchmarks. It would appear that everything is actually memory access bound, rather than CPU bound. Which doesn't make it a particularly good test of CPU performance.

Is there anyone who might be able to explain this?

Actually, the frequency in the single thread is the same, thanks to Turbo Boost. The labelled frequency is actually the guaranted frequency when all the cores are fully charged. And, for instance, when running Cinebench multithreaded bench, my quad core labeled at 2GHz is actually running at around 2.5 Ghz

But with a listed speed of 2.2GHz vs. 2.7GHz, the turbo speeds should also be separated by the same delta. At least, that's how every Core i7 I've used functions. The turbo is a set additional increase.

So either the CPUs are identical and the article is wrong, or they are different, and there is something wrong with geekbench. Given the nature of benchmarks, I'm actually leaning towards the latter.

So wait, a 500MHz clock delta, and barely any performance delta in the single threaded tests? That seems...strange.

For CPU bound tests, such as the integer and fp tests, you would expect on the order of 15-20% performance deltas from a ~23% clock delta (the 13" is ~23% faster, after all).

These tests actually make me think something is wonky in the benchmarks. It would appear that everything is actually memory access bound, rather than CPU bound. Which doesn't make it a particularly good test of CPU performance.

Is there anyone who might be able to explain this?

The listed speeds are more "minimum speeds when all cores are in use". When fewer cores are in use, the CPU can "turbo boost" them to higher clock speeds up to the CPU's overall thermal/power thresholds. So on the single thread test, both processors are probably only really using one core at the same speed (probably over 3GHz).

I have one of the new 15" MBPs (thanks work!) and the CPU horsepower is shocking. I can't honestly recall any previous time when I've had a laptop that actually ran faster than the best production servers I had access to

The performance charts/graphs in this article aren't up to ARS's usual gorgeous standard. The 3D effect is from all different angles, the shadow effects are off, and the "vertical" axis isn't vertical (the left side of the horizontal bars are not aligned). Sorry for the negative comment.

I have one of the new 15" MBPs (thanks work!) and the CPU horsepower is shocking. I can't honestly recall any previous time when I've had a laptop that actually ran faster than the best production servers I had access to

Talk about RDF effect...

So a Core i5 CPU isn't faster than the best production servers clee has access to?

I just bought a 13" MBP myself, though I opted for the cheaper i5 2.3 GHz version. It's still got good enough performance for what I plan to use it for, so paying the (pretty ludicrous) premium for the upgrade to 2.7 GHz wasn't worth it to me. To my mind, the $1,199 price for the 2.3 GHz 13" MBP is Apple's most competitive at the moment. (I was looking at PC laptops first, and decided on the MBP at the last minute. Don't ask.)

I, too, have the same click from the hard drive when I move the laptop, though it's not terribly reassuring to me. It kicks in with quite modest movements, which is sometimes disconcerting. I guess it's better than having the drive destroy itself, but in my years of using other laptops with less-sensitive head parking mechanisms, I do wonder if they couldn't dial it back a bit.

I'd say my only real disappointment, though, is the screen resolution. 1440x900 would be perfect for this screen size, though 1280x800 isn't exactly terrible--at least it can display 720p fullscreen at native res without scaling. And though it may be a TN panel, the colors are good, the horizontal viewing angles are excellent, and there's a pretty large sweet spot in the vertical viewing angles (at least as far as TN panels go). Considering it's basically impossible to find a better-quality screen these days, it's hard to complain too much about it.

I'm liking the keyboard more than I thought I would, and I've gotten used to the touchpad faster than I imagined. I had initially enabled the options to make the trackpad behave more like PC laptops' trackpads do, but I've gradually disabled those options and am now using a pretty much default configuration.

One thing I've noticed about the heat generated by the CPU is that the placement of the CPU really helps in the perception of the heat generated. The CPU is located in the center back (middle of the keyboard, nearest the screen). That puts the hottest part of the laptop right between the gap between your legs if you're using it on your lap. On the edges and at the front, the temps are much, much cooler so it doesn't feel like it's generating as much heat as it actually is because the hottest part isn't likely to be in direct contact with your skin. I'm not sure if this was an intentional aspect of the design, but it's certainly a welcome one.

All told, though, I'm quite fond of this laptop. The battery life is excellent for lighter usage, it's thin and light enough to pop into a slip case and take out for several hours, and the unibody construction makes it feel really solid. It may be a bit heavier than some of the PC alternatives out there, but it doesn't feel cheap or plasticky the way many PC laptops do these days. Whether it's worth the price premium depends on the person, so it might be hard to recommend to someone who hasn't already decided to buy a Mac. But even now that the "new toy" feeling has worn off, I'm still satisfied with my purchase...

Given the (lack of) performance difference between the 13" and its bigger siblings, no wonder Apple uses other features to force upsells. And it's practically impossible to find a 13" notebook with > 1366x768 resolution. I tried, the only one I found is a Sony Z Series for $1,800+.

zeesix wrote:

And there isn't really a PC manufacturer that comes even close to the unibody design of the MBPs, let alone the excellent touchpads.

Check out the HP Envy line. Seems they targeted the MacBook Pro aesthetic.

Given the (lack of) performance difference between the 13" and its bigger siblings, no wonder Apple uses other features to force upsells. And it's practically impossible to find a 13" notebook with > 1366x768 resolution. I tried, the only one I found is a Sony Z Series for $1,800+.

The Dell Vostro v130 I'm using has 1366x780. Configured with low voltage i3 and 4gb ram got it up to $669.

Just bought this one as well. My only gripe is the weight, it's a little bit on the heavy side. But I guess that's because of glass screen and the casing. I went several rounds with myself between the 13" Air and the Pro. Ultimately landed on the Pro, because of ease of upgrades in the future. This is going to be my main laptop for the next 3-4 years and beeing able to upgrade storage space and RAM weighed in heavily. Now if only Intel could ship it's 3gen SSD's so the prices drop abit. Looking forward to some SSD goodness!

By the way, can anyone recommend a good bag for this one ? Has to fit snug, and have room for the powerbrick.

Also need a slip-on case, for when I want to chuck it in my bag for travelling.

However... I'm shocked by how much of a step backward the graphics are (both the integrated Intel crap and the ATI Radeon HD 6490M). Dragging windows around the top of the screen, I can actually see tearing, and it still happens even if I disable the integrated GPU. Not only that, but simple animations like the zoom effect when toggling between actual-size and full-screen videos in QuickTime Player X and iTunes are choppy as hell.

Sounds like you really have something screwy going on with your computer - I have a late 2008 MBP 15" and I don't have any issues like that, and my graphics hardware is outdated compared to yours.

But with a listed speed of 2.2GHz vs. 2.7GHz, the turbo speeds should also be separated by the same delta. At least, that's how every Core i7 I've used functions. The turbo is a set additional increase.

So either the CPUs are identical and the article is wrong, or they are different, and there is something wrong with geekbench. Given the nature of benchmarks, I'm actually leaning towards the latter.

It is getting really hard to quote CPU performance and frequency... It varies all the time with power and temperature requirement. There is 1 million transistors dedicated to this task in the Core ixxx. When a single core is used, the is more headroom so the turbo is more important.

In this case, the 2.2 Ghz is a QUAD core with a single core turbo up to 3.3 GhzThe 2.7 is a DUAL core with a single core turbo up to 3.4 Ghz

Apple does not want to give the name of the CPU, but the quad core 2.2 GHz is a Core i7 i7-2720QM and the dual code 2.7 Ghz is a Core i5 i7-2620M.

I have one of the new 15" MBPs (thanks work!) and the CPU horsepower is shocking. I can't honestly recall any previous time when I've had a laptop that actually ran faster than the best production servers I had access to, and I'm really looking forward to playing with Thunderbolt once some peripherals finally come out for it.

However... I'm shocked by how much of a step backward the graphics are (both the integrated Intel crap and the ATI Radeon HD 6490M). Dragging windows around the top of the screen, I can actually see tearing, and it still happens even if I disable the integrated GPU. Not only that, but simple animations like the zoom effect when toggling between actual-size and full-screen videos in QuickTime Player X and iTunes are choppy as hell.

Don't know what's happening on your machine, but I'm a generation back and see none of tearing issues you refer to, even running multiple monitors. Time for a Genius Bar visit?